Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh has weighed in on the ongoing debate about Bitcoin’s quantum resistance, urging the community not to panic but also not to ignore the long-term risks. In a recent interview highlighted by Isabel Foxen Duke, Boneh emphasized that a hasty migration to post-quantum cryptography could introduce more problems than it solves.
According to Boneh, the bigger immediate danger is not a quantum attack but a buggy transition. He stated that an aggressive move to a post-quantum architecture by 2029 would likely be a mistake, as the probability of a catastrophic error during migration is higher than the chance of a quantum computer targeting Bitcoin.
The discussion gained urgency following a March 2026 paper from Google Quantum AI, co-authored by Boneh, which suggested that Shor’s algorithm could break Bitcoin’s secp256k1 curve using around 1,200 logical qubits and fewer than 500,000 physical qubits under certain conditions. Boneh noted that while these estimates are significant, a cryptographically relevant quantum computer before 2035 remains possible but not certain under current funding levels.
The debate has spilled into Bitcoin governance with proposals like BIP 361, which aims to phase out legacy signatures. Boneh criticized compressed migration windows, arguing that such proposals need more complete design work and time. He advocated for hybrid signatures that combine existing elliptic curve cryptography with post-quantum schemes, preferring lattice-based signatures over hash-based designs due to their flexibility for threshold signatures and future innovation.
Boneh’s stance aligns with broader industry calls for preparation without panic. He insisted that Bitcoin can survive quantum risk and dismissed claims to the contrary as unfounded, pointing to known paths like moving users to post-quantum addresses and gradually phasing out vulnerable legacy systems.